In a case where Party A acquired land owned by Party B as a public site under the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects to carry out an urban planning road construction project, and thereafter divided the said land, and part of the said land was incorporated into the apartment site and road site pursuant to the housing construction project implemented by Party B, but Party B did not notify or publicly notify that Party B would exercise the right of repurchase because the road project was changed or discontinued according to the housing construction project implemented by Party B; and Party B failed to exercise the right of repurchase within the period for exercising the right of repurchase, filed a claim against Party B for damages due to the loss of the right of repurchase against the local government, the case holding that Party B was liable to compensate Party B for damages arising from the said tort, on the ground that Party A’s local government did not notify or publicly announce that the right of repurchase had occurred on the date when the right of repurchase was approved, even if Party A’s local government did not publicly notify that the right of repurchase had occurred on the date when the right of repurchase was exercised.

A local government acquired the land owned by B as a public site under the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Land Compensation Act”), and then partially divided the said land was incorporated into a road under a road project, but the remaining land was incorporated into a road site and a road site under a housing construction project implemented by C. A. The local government did not make a notification or public announcement to the effect that B would exercise the right of repurchase because the road project was changed or discontinued in accordance with the housing construction project plan that was implemented by C. A’s local government. Accordingly, the period for exercising the right of repurchase is the case where B, who failed to exercise the right of repurchase within the period for exercising the right of repurchase, sought damages for loss of the right of repurchase against A

In full view of the facts that part of the land acquired through consultation by a local government for a road project becomes unnecessary for a road project as it is incorporated into the land for a housing construction project within 10 years from the date of acquisition through consultation, and that the said land became necessary for a housing construction project or was continuously designated as a road as a one-time transportation facility for a housing construction project, the above land does not affect the establishment or extinguishment of a repurchase right, and since a repurchase right of Eul already occurred on the date of approval of a housing development project plan, the former Land Compensation Act was amended by Act No. 10239 on April 5, 2010, and it cannot be deemed that the exercise of a repurchase right already occurred on the date of the alteration of the public project under Article 4 subparag. 5 of the Act, which included the housing development project under Article 91(6), was limited to the exercise of a repurchase right on the date of approval of the housing construction project plan, and as a local government Gap, which is a project operator, did not notify the above repurchase right to the local government or did not lose the repurchase right.

Articles 91(1) and (6) and 92(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007); Articles 750 and 766 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Hong Ho-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Ulsan Metropolitan City Jung-gu (Law Firm Won, Attorneys Park Sang-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 21, 2019

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 98,521,79 won with 5% interest per annum from June 30, 2013 to July 8, 2019, and 12% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned 400 square meters prior to the Ulsan-gu ○○dong (number 1 omitted) (hereinafter “land before subdivision”).

B. On June 23, 2003, the Defendant acquired land before subdivision from the Plaintiff as a public site pursuant to the former Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor (amended by Act No. 8665 of Oct. 17, 2007; hereinafter “former Land Compensation Act”), and paid KRW 157,354,200 to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2003, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the said land before subdivision.

C. On August 30, 2007, the land before subdivision was divided into 116 square meters (hereinafter “instant land 2”), 67 square meters prior to the (number 1 omitted), 217 square meters prior to the (number 3 omitted), and 67 square meters prior to the (number 1 omitted), (number 4 omitted), (number 5 omitted), (number 5 omitted), and (number 6 omitted), and (number 67 square meters prior to the subdivision into the instant road project. The land was established as a road according to the instant road project on September 4, 2014 (number 3 omitted), and (number 3 omitted) 217 square meters prior to the subdivision was divided into 197 square meters prior to the (number 3 omitted) and (number 7 omitted) 20 square meters prior to the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”).

D. On the other hand, on July 12, 2007, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor approved and announced the housing construction project plan for the housing construction project (hereinafter “the housing construction project in this case”) with respect to the land outside 245 parcels, which is executed by the Gaeld Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ield Co., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Ilsan Metropolitan City Co., Ltd., Ltd.”) (hereinafter “Ilsan Metropolitan City Co., Ltd.”) and the land was incorporated into the apartment site under the housing construction project. The land was incorporated into the apartment site under the housing construction project in this case, and the land was incorporated into the road (road number 2) among the transportation facilities of the housing construction project in this case. The land in this case was incorporated into the road (road number 2) and the land in this case was incorporated into the housing construction project in this case as the final road number 3 (Public Notice No. 2013-263, Nov. 28, 2013).

E. In order to implement the instant housing construction project, the non-party company acquired each of the instant land from the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party company. On March 6, 2015, the non-party company donated the instant land to the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant.

On March 6, 2015, the land category/area of the instant land contained in the main text is unregistered on the date of registration of the ground for registration, and the apartment site in the instant case is owned on November 20, 2007, on November 20, 2007, with the land category/area of the instant land on the date of registration of the ground for registration, and on February 3, 2015, the apartment site was owned on March 27, 2015.

F. The Defendant did not give notice or public notice to the Plaintiff to the effect that, as the instant road project was modified or discontinued in accordance with the instant housing construction project plan, the repurchase right should be exercised.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 10, 11, 12, Eul evidence 1, 2 and 3 (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff

With respect to each of the instant land among the land acquired through consultation for the instant road project on July 12, 2007, the need for the instant road project was nonexistent due to the public notice on approval of the instant housing construction project plan. As such, the Plaintiff acquired a repurchase right on July 12, 2007 pursuant to the former Land Compensation Act. However, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 92 of the same Act, and the Plaintiff did not exercise a repurchase right until June 30, 2013, which is the period for exercising the repurchase right under Article 91(1) of the same Act. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the said tort.

B. Defendant

1) The instant land Nos. 1 and 3 was incorporated into a road (road No. 2 omitted) in the form of an urban planning facility as a site for the instant road project, even after the Plaintiff lost its right of repurchase, and the instant land was finally incorporated into a road (road No. 3 omitted), which is an urban planning facility, as of November 28, 2013, and thus, the instant land Nos. 1 and 3 do not cease to exist, and thus, the instant land constitutes “the conversion of public works” under Article 91(1) of the former Land Compensation Act or “the conversion of public works” under Articles 91(6) and 4 subparag. 2 of the same Act, and thus, the exercise of the right of repurchase is restricted.

2) As to the land of this case 2, the Defendant sold it to the non-party company on November 21, 2007, and the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on the land of this case was filed after the lapse of 10 years thereafter. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s damage claim expired by prescription. Even if the Plaintiff’s damage claim was filed on June 30, 2013, the Defendant disposed of the land and the above-ground house in the non-party company in the vicinity Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-dong (number 9 omitted) in addition to the land before division, and (number 10 omitted) as the land was subject to a lawsuit against the non-party company, the approval notice of the instant construction project plan was issued on July 12, 2007 or the repurchase right was lost on June 30, 2013. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s damage claim expired after the lapse of three years thereafter.

3. Determination

A. Establishment of liability for damages

In full view of the following facts, the Plaintiff’s right to repurchase each of the instant lands occurred on July 12, 2007, which is the date when the approval of the instant housing construction project plan was approved and announced, and the Defendant, the project implementer of the instant road project, was obligated to notify the Plaintiff of the occurrence of the right to repurchase pursuant to Article 92(1) of the former Land Compensation Act. However, the Defendant did not notify or publicly notify the Plaintiff of the occurrence of the right to repurchase on each of the instant land. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to exercise the right to repurchase even after the lapse of June 30, 2013, which is the period for exercising the right to repurchase on each of the instant land. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the said tort (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da45864, Nov. 14, 200, etc.).

① Of the lands acquired through consultation on June 30, 2003 for the instant road project, each of the instant lands was incorporated into land for the instant housing construction project, not for the instant road project, according to the approval and publication of the instant housing construction project plan on July 12, 2007, within ten years from the date of acquisition through consultation.

② The term “relevant project” under Article 91(1) of the former Land Compensation Act refers to a specific public project that is an object of expropriation or acquisition through consultation, and it refers to a specific public project that is specified in detail when obtaining project approval under Article 20 of the former Land Compensation Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da1457, Sept. 4, 2014; 2015Da238963, Mar. 15, 2017). Thus, even if each of the instant land becomes necessary for the instant housing construction project or it has been continuously designated as a road for the purpose of the instant housing construction project, such circumstance does not affect the establishment or extinguishment of a repurchase right with respect to each of the instant land.

③ The instant housing development project constitutes “housing development project” under Article 4 subparag. 5 of the former Land Compensation Act, not “road-related business” under Article 4 subparag. 2 of the same Act, as alleged by the Defendant. The housing development project included the housing development project under Article 91 subparag. 5 of the same Act, which is subject to the “conversion of public-service businesses” under Article 91(6) of the same Act, due to the amendment of the Land Compensation Act by Act No. 10239, Apr. 5, 2010. As regards each of the instant land, the Plaintiff’s repurchase right has already occurred on July 12, 2007, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the exercise of the repurchase right already occurred due to the amendment of the Land Compensation Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1457, Sept. 4, 2014).

B. Whether the statute of limitations expired

The Defendant’s damage claim arising from the omission that the Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the occurrence of the right of repurchase shall be deemed to have occurred due to the lapse of the period for exercising the right of repurchase on June 30, 2013. Therefore, as alleged by the Defendant, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff’s damage claim occurred on November 21, 2007, when the Defendant sold the instant two land to Nonparty Company, or that the Plaintiff was aware of July 12, 2007, which was the date when the approval approval of the instant housing development project plan was given to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Defendant, on July 12, 2007. In addition, according to each of subparagraphs 5 through 9, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff disposed of the Plaintiff’s land and the above ground housing adjacent to the land before division to the non-party Company, and (number 10 omitted) land was disposed of to the non-party Company, but it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff was related to the Defendant’s damage claim and the offender.

C. Scope of damages

The amount of compensation due to the loss of the right of repurchase by the original owner, etc. under the former Land Compensation Act is the amount calculated by deducting the repurchase price to be returned when the repurchase right holder exercised the right of repurchase from the market price of the object as at the time of loss of the right of repurchase. When the amount of appraisal of the object of repurchase at the time of loss of the right of repurchase is less than or equal to the amount calculated by multiplying the “compensation paid” as stipulated in Article 91(1) of the former Land Compensation Act by the fluctuation rate of neighboring similar land unrelated to the project up to the time of loss of the right of repurchase, it shall be calculated by deducting the said “compensation paid” from the said appraised amount. However, if it exceeds this, it shall be [the appraised amount at the time of loss of the right of repurchase - (the appraised amount at the time of loss of the right of repurchase - the amount paid x the compensation paid x the amount calculated by multiplying the inflation rate of neighboring land at the time of loss of the right of repurchase (see, e

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument as a result of the court’s commission of appraisal to the Nonparty, the appraisal value at the time of loss of the right of repurchase on each of the instant lands, the land price fluctuation rate and the land price inflation rate of similar similar lands adjacent to the time of loss of the right of repurchase from the acquisition date of each of the instant lands, are indicated in the corresponding column as follows. In the case of each of the instant lands, it is apparent that the compensation paid by the appraisal value (b) at the time of loss of the right of repurchase exceeds the amount (axc) calculated by multiplying the compensation paid by the land price fluctuation rate of neighboring similar lands at the

The appraisal value (won) a c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c 1 land contained in the main sentence of this Article 127,037,688 58,284,684,682 40,484,484,428,428,001.8474 0.8474 times8,874,874,874 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c f c 8,753,700,706,840,8475,97487,975,2974827,974,97584,207 84,974,200.

Note 1) Compensation (cost)

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, as the Plaintiff seeks from June 30, 201, June 30, 2013, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act until July 8, 2019, and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment, to the day of delivery of a copy of the purport of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of claim, as the Plaintiff seeks.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

Judges Cho Jong-hee

1) As the compensation unit price for each of the instant lands, an amount calculated by multiplying the land area (1: 197 square meters, 2 land: 116 square meters, 3 square meters, and 20 square meters) of each of the instant lands by 349,000 or 42 square meters as claimed by the Plaintiff.